lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
On 12/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Atomically sending signal to every member of a process group, is the
> big fly in the ointment I am aware of. Last time I looked I could
> not see how to convert it rcu.

I am not sure, but iirc we can do this lockless (under rcu_lock).
We need to modify pid_link to use list_entry and attach_pid() should
add the new task to the end. Of course we need more changes, but
(again iirc) this is not too hard.

> This is a pain because we occasionally signal a process group from
> interrupt context.

Only send_sigio/etc does so, right?


I didn't read the previous discussion yet (will try tomorrow), sorry
if I am off-topic. But I think the nastiest problem with tasklist
is that it protects parent/child relationship. We need per-process
lock, but first we should change ptrace to avoid this lock somehow.
(this is one of the goals of ptrace-utrace, but not "immediate").

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 19:41    [W:0.302 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site